beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s compulsory execution against the Plaintiff based on the payment order issued by the Gwangju District Court 2017 tea162.
Reasons
1. The Defendant’s basic facts against the Plaintiff as this Court Order 2017 tea162, June 4, 2013, and the same year
7. On April 11, 2017, the court issued a payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) with the purport that “the Plaintiff shall pay damages for delay from June 5, 2013 to the Defendant for KRW 40,000,000 and KRW 30,000,000,000 from July 24, 2013.” The instant payment order was served on the Plaintiff on April 17, 2017, and was finalized on May 2, 2017 due to the Plaintiff’s failure to raise an objection.
[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole argument
2. The parties’ assertion and determination are as follows: (a) the costs incurred from delay in removal, etc. of fixed scrapers from the Defendant incurred by the Defendant; (b) the costs incurred on June 4, 2013; and (c) the same year.
7. On the other hand, the defendant asserts that he only received a total of KRW 40,000,000 on 10,000,000 and did not borrow the above money from the defendant, while the defendant lent the above money to the plaintiff.
In the case of a final and conclusive payment order, the grounds for failure or invalidity, etc. incurred prior to the issuance of the payment order may be asserted in the lawsuit of objection against the payment order with respect to the claim which was the cause of the claim of the payment order. In such a lawsuit of objection, the burden of proof as to the grounds of objection in the lawsuit of objection shall be in accordance with the principle of allocation of burden of proof in the general civil procedure. Therefore, in the case where the plaintiff asserts that the claim was not established in the lawsuit of objection against the
(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da12852 Decided June 24, 2010). In this case, the Plaintiff asserted that the loan claim, which was the cause of the instant payment order, was not established. As such, the Plaintiff asserted that the claim for the instant payment order was not established, the cause of the said claim is the Defendant.